The Electoral College system was provided for in the Constitution
because, at one time, it seemed the most fair way to select the
President and Vice President. Alexander Hamilton apparently expressed
the prevailing view when we wrote that the small number of persons
selected from the general population would most likely have the ability
and intelligence to select the best persons for the job. I have no
doubt but that in the 18th century, the Electoral College was well
suited for our country. However, already by the early 19th century,
misgivings were being voiced about the college.

The skepticism seems to be related to the formation of political party
candidates, and the difference they made in the selection of the
President and Vice President. In the years since then, the Electoral
College has remained in use. It has served us fairly well-except for
three times when it allowed a candidate to gain the Presidency who did
not have the most popular votes.

There have been numerous other elections in which a shift of a few
thousand votes would have changed the outcome of the Electoral College
vote, despite the fact that the would-be winner came in second place in
popular votes. Mr. President, I think we are leaving a little too much
to chance, and to hope, that we will not witness yet another
unrepresentative election.

Many persons have the impression that the Electoral College benefits
those persons living in small states. I feel that this is somewhat of a
misconception. Through my experiences with the Republican National
Committee and as a Vice Presidential candidate it became very clear
that the populous states with their large blocks of Electoral College
votes were the crucial states. It was in these states that we focused
our efforts.

Were we to switch to a system of direct election, I think we would see
a resulting change in the nature of campaigning. While urban areas will
still be important campaigning centers, there will be a new emphasis
given to smaller states. Candidates will soon realize that all votes
are important, and votes from small states carry the same import as
votes from large states. That to me is one of the major attractions of
direct election. Each vote carries equal importance.

Direct election would give candidates incentive to campaign in states
that are perceived to be single party states. For no longer will
minority votes be lost. Their accumulated total will be important, and
in some instances perhaps even decisive.

The objections raised to direct election are varied. When they are
analyzed, I think many objections reflect not so much satisfaction with
the Electoral College, but rather a reluctance to chance an established
political system.

While I could never advocate change simply for the sake of changing, neither should we defer action because we fear change.

In this situation, I think the weaknesses in the current system have
been demonstrated, and that the prudent move is to provides for direct
election of the President and Vice President.

I hope that the Senate will be able to move ahead on this resolution.
As long as we continue with the Electoral College system, we will be
placing our trust in an institution which usually works according to
design, but which sometimes does not. There are remedies available to
us and I trust the Senate will act to correct this weakness in our
political system.